One of the Communing Callers came by yesterday and blamed Protestants for secularization. “Protestantism paved the way for secularism which is a battle the Catholic Church continues to fight. To ignore this truth is to ignore history.”
This is a curious point of view for those who claim to be standing in continuity with Christian history — especially that history BEFORE the Reformation. As the wonderful current three-volume study by Francis Oakley of medieval political theology is showing, secularization was hard wired into Christianity from the beginning:
The conception of the Kingdom of God, then, that Lies at the heart of the teaching of the Gospels on matters political is one that differs radically from that associated with the messianic views dominant in Jesus’s own lifetime. To that fact attests the evident bewilderment both of his own followers, at least one of whom appears to have been a Zealot (Luke 6:15), and of his Jewish opponents, who certainly were not but who at the end sough to convince Pontius Pilate that Jesus had at least to be something of a Zealot fellow-traveler. But Jesus’s negativity in matters political, his frequent disparagement of the kings and governments of this world and of their coercive methods, had little in common with Zealot attitudes. The less so, indeed, in that it was directed against all the governmental structures with which he had come into contact. Jewish no less than Roman. Nor should we miss the fact that that negativity was balanced, somewhat, by at least some measure of approval extended to governmental authority. Admittedly limited in scope, that approval finds practical expression in Jesus’s own obedience to the laws of the land and formal expression in his celebrated statement on the tribute money (“Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s”). If that statement evaded the trap being set for him by the Pharisees and Sadducees, it must certainly have scandalized the Zealots. For if the Things that were God’s had to be rendered unto God, the Tribute money, nevertheless, was identifies as Caesar’s, and Jesus indicated that it had to be rendered unto Caesar. That position was wholly in keeping with his insistence that the Kingdom whose advent he was preaching was “not of this world.” And both positions imply (in modern terms) an altogether novel separation of “religious” from “political” loyalties that stands out, in the broader context of the history of political thought . . . “Empty Bottles of Gentilism” (58)
Oakley goes on to quote approvingly Fustel de Coulanges (don’t worry, I didn’t know him either — a late nineteenth-century French historian):
Christianity completes the overthrow of local worship; it extinguishes the prytanea [sacred fire], and completely destroys the city-protecting divinities. It does more: it refuses to assume the empire which these worships had exercised over civil society. It professes that between the state and itself there is nothing in common. It separates what antiquity had confounded. We may remark, moreover, that during three centuries the new religion lived entirely beyond the action of the state; it knew how to dispense with state protection, and even to struggle against it. These three centuries established an abyss between the domain of government and the domain of religion; and, as the recollection of the period could not be effaced, it followed that this distinction became a plain and incontestable truth, which the efforts of even a part of the clergy could not efface. (59)
Oakley goes on to suggest that medieval churchmen played a substantial role in effacing the distinction that de Coulanges observed (and that Augustine elaborated in The City of God and was undone by the claims of a magisterial papacy):
. . . the Augustine whom one characteristically encounters in the Middle Ages is the Augustine of The City of God only insofar as that work was read or reinterpreted in light of what he had to say in his tracts against the Donatists. Medieval churchmen, after all, did not fully share his somber doctrine of grace; they rejected his sternly predestinarian division between the reprobate and the elect; they saw instead in every member of the visible Church Militant a person already touched by grace and potentially capable of citizenship in the civitas dei. More familiar with the anti-Donatist writings, in which Augustine had ascribed to the Christian emperor a distinctive role in the vindication of orthodoxy, than with the sober, limited and essential secular conception of rulership conveyed in his City of God, those churchmen were also apt, it may be, to assimilate the historical vision embedded in the latter to the optimistic Christian progressivism that Orosius had made (influentially) his own. They were led, accordingly, even while invoking Augustine’s authority, to depart from his mature and controlling political vision. That is to say, they broke down the firm distinction between the city of God and the Christian societies of this world that we have seen him draw so firmly in all but a handful of texts in The City of God itself. Instead, and what he actually had had to say about justice and the commonwealth to the contrary, they understood him to have asserted that it is the glorious destiny of Christian society — church, empire, Christian commonwealth, call it what you will — to labor to inaugurate the Kingdom of God and the reign of true justice in this world. (140-41)
This is why the CTC assessment of two-kingdom theology needs to go back to the drawing board and do a little historical investigation. Oakley’s interpretation of Christ and Augustine does sheds some light on CTC’s reading of the church fathers. They have precedent for seeing what they want to see.
Postscript: Orosius was an early fifth-century Spanish theologian who set out to do “nothing less than demonstrate “in every respect that the empire of Augustus had been prepared for the advent of Christ.” (Oakley, 116)
136 Comments
D.G.,
I think the problem is that your not use to seeing the gospel in any holistic sense. Jesus shows us what holistic ministry looks like and he seems to be concerned about more than the guilt of sin and the need for grace but also the effects of that sin and the form that grace takes. Jesus healed whole people and the gospel proclaimed by the Catholic Church is for the whole person not just their legal status in a Roman court.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
Jeremy, and you may not be thinking through how holistic that healing was. Think Lazarus or the woman at the well. Natural means only go so far with sinful bodies that need to die. You still believe in original sin, right? You still believe in hell, right? Economic rights are not going to fix those ailments.
D.G.,
How much of the Catholic Catechism have you actually ever read?
Have you considered that it’s possible to care about both the eternal destiny of people and the current suckiness of their life?
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
Jeremy, glad to hear this about hell. I have read the catechism and many other writings of the church and believe it or not it is not as coherent at CTC alleges. So if unbelievers are going to hell, why spend so much time trying to do social justice? Of course, you can “care” about both eternal life and difficult circumstances of this life, but if you give people good drinking water it doesn’t produce eternal life. Just ask the woman at the well.
Jeremy – Calvinists brag about these achievements
Erik – Not all Calvinists
The Pope needs to watch “The Wire” for a more nuanced view of good and evil, rich and poor. These are not simple questions and only God sees men’s hearts, which is where evil and greed truly reside. Reordering society does not get the job done.
Jeremy – I think the problem is that your not use to seeing the gospel in any holistic sense. Jesus shows us what holistic ministry looks like and he seems to be concerned about more than the guilt of sin and the need for grace but also the effects of that sin and the form that grace takes. Jesus healed whole people and the gospel proclaimed by the Catholic Church is for the whole person not just their legal status in a Roman court.
Erik – Remove “Catholic Church” and I wouldn’t know if I was reading Jeremy Tate, Nelson Kloosterman, or the 19th century New School Presbyterians I was reading about last night. I’m really enjoying “Seeking a Better Country”. There are a few great quotes that I will reproduce here when I am done. Muether and Hart wrote it, but I can identify the Hart zingers from a mile away.
D.G.,
This is a strange experience for me. Am I really debating a Christian pastor about whether or not the Church should spend its energy defending the poor and oppressed?
Maybe social justice doesn’t produce mass conversions, but shouldn’t we do it simply because God commands it?
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
Jeremy, I am not a pastor, let alone a Christian pastor. I am an elder in the OPC, but Oldlife is an extension of an informal group of people who talk about Reformed faith and practice.
What is odd to me is that I am having to remind someone who believes in hell and sin that poverty and oppression are not as important — eternity wise — as sin and salvation. “What does it profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his soul?”
Jeremy, so with all that talk about a holistic gospel and ministry (apparently derived from premises of Catholic social teaching), what would you think of the suggestion that the RCC gave birth to the social gospel? I’m sure you’d take issue, which is not too unlike taking issue with the suggestion that Protestantism birthed the undermining of all authority, etc.
Didn’t Calvin nearly eliminate homelessness in Geneva? Didn’t he actually redesign the sewer system as well? Calvinists brag about these achievements but when Catholics do good works we are told our Church is distracted from the gospel.
Well, when neo-Calvinists brag about transformative achievements conservative Calvinists demure. Maybe it’s the former with whom you have a beef, but it’s the latter that have one with the pair of you.
Defending the poor and oppressed in the 21st century West is also a tricky proposition. Since Rome is so huge and they don’t do a great job policing their own membership, are they really well positioned to do the tough work of determining why the poor and oppressed are poor and oppressed and to offer remedies that will truly deliver people from poverty and oppression? Most people who escape poverty and oppression in the U.S. have to make a conscious decision to be counter-cultural from where they grow up. When their friends tell them it is uncool to do well in school, they do it anyway. They avoid gangs, getting pregnant (or getting someone pregnant), they avoid drugs, etc. Does a church that is centered on The Mass and not on Christian discipleship assist poor people to be counter-cultural? I will say that Catholic schools in poor communities are a step in the right direction. I think our point, though, is that if you don’t get the gospel right, social justice is a hollow goal.
Jeremy,
I don’t know enough about your pre-conversion to Rome convictions, but whereas Jason was likely an exception that proved the rule, maybe you already had a proclivity for marrying your religious(sacred) convictions to cultural concerns and so this more ‘holistic’ view of salvation dovetailed quite nicely into your concerns, convictions, and beliefs about religion and salvation and it’s ‘impact’ on the broader culture.
D.G.,
There is no indication from the gospels that Jesus feels the tension you are expressing between good works/social justice and proclaiming the gospel. In fact, he directly connects hell/condemnation with the failure to do good/social justice;
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
This whole discussion points to the idea that Rome is more informed by it’s Thomistic tradition; the relationship of nature and grace, then a scriptural tradition.
Zrim,
The worldwide leader in providing relief to the poor, oppressed, sick, orphans, marginalized, ect for the past two thousand years has been the Catholic Church. Again, it’s hard for me to get my head around why this is something to criticize in light of the divine mandate to do what the Church is doing, but I am trying to understand where you’re coming from.
Another irony in this debate is the lack of Reformed conversions. Most Reformed people either grow up Reformed or become convinced of Reformed theology through theological investigation (this is the story of many CtC btw), but few, I ackknowledge there are some, are simply lost people who hear the gospel proclaimed by a Reformed pastor and become believers. In fact, it’s guys like Tim Keller who you all seem to dislike who is actually seeing conversions in his church. So, I’m wondering why the OPC is a stagnant denomination with little or no growth if the gospel is being proclaimed so faithfully. Is God not converting hearts through the preaching of the gospel to the unbeliever or is the OPC simply failing to preach to the unbeliever? D.G. wants to keep his eye on the ball (just sin and grace) of what he sees as the gospel, but it’s not amounting to any more conversions than occur in the Catholic Church. In fact, since becoming Catholic I have met way more people with no religious background (or Jewish or Atheist) who became believers from the Catholic Church then I ever met in Reformed circles. They are actually some of the most theologically minded Catholics I know.
So I’m just wondering why they aren’t more conversions if you are so focused on the pure gospel? I’m not being sarcastic, don’t read into my tone. I’m just asking the question.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
Jeremy, it’s a fair question. It’s also one asked us by the mega-church evangelicals. The assumption shared by both seems to be one that is fairly captive for numbers and strength. You may be trying to wrap your brain around the questioning of holistic gospel, but it’s hard for us over here to understand what’s the big deal about numbers and strength and high profiles and world-wide leadership. But I suppose it explains things like ECT.
Still, in contrast to both Catholics and evangelicals, the Reformed virtue is obedience, not results. The holy rollers of whatever variety may talk a lot about the Holy Spirit, but we actually do believe that the Spirit will do the work of conversion and that all we are asked to do is be faithful and obedient, which in some ways is actually a lot easier compared to sweating looking good. So while you and the evangelicals may look askance at our relative poverty in terms of results, it doesn’t really bother us the way is seems to you all. In fact, obedience may very well result in getting kicked in the teeth (or nailed to a tree). I mean, if you read the Bible closely enough you’ll see the counter-intuitive reality that those who are blessed aren’t exactly big and puffy. It’s actually the other way around.
Jeremy, “My kingdom is not of this world.” “Render unto Caeser.” Someone can gain the world and lose their soul (again)? If you had converted to Eastern Orthodoxy where Caesaro-papism can conflate the secular and sacred more readily than in the West, you might in happier company.
Zrim,
O.K., So when and where do secular unchurched people go to hear the gospel from the mouth of the OPC? There are hundreds of theology on tap groups around the nation where Catholic priests are reaching the unchurched on their own turf and many conversions have happened. I’ve spent too much time around Reformed people to totally buy what you’re saying.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
Jeremy, and cutting my own spiritual teeth around results oriented mega-church evangelicals (born, bred and buttered in broad secular unbelief), I’m having a hard buying into the Catholic version of Willow Creek. But where can unbelievers go to hear the gospel? To church. At least even I, when still in unbelief, knew enough to assume that, as well as to be skeptical of those in the open air selling religion. But wait, I’m the one pushing a high ecclesiology here and you’re championing priests channeling Whitefield? Maybe you haven’t shaken off all the evangelicalism yet but have simply clothed in vestments.
Zrim,
Zrim,
Honestly, I’m baffled. After all the “you don’t preach the gospel you don’t even know it” rhetoric thrown at Catholics now I am hearing you say, “oh, Uh, well… we reach the lost by expecting them to show up at an OPC Church service.” Really? Does that actually happen? I know and care deeply about many unchurched secular people and I don’t see them ever just showing up at an OPC Church. For a Church that represents less than 1 out of every 10,000 professing believers on the planet you spend a great deal of time condemning the other 99.9% I’m not sure I see how the OPC preaches to the lost or serves the poor and that should concern you enough to take a look in the mirror.
You condemned the Catholic Church for not keeping our eye on the ball of sin and grace and preaching to the lost. Then, you can’t tell me how and where your Church does what your accusing mine of not doing.
What was Paul doing on Mars Hill in Athens? Do you disagree with his tactics there?
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
Jeremy, first, I’m not sure where I’ve huffed and puffed, accused and and condemned anybody. Second, I’m not OPC but URC, though I guess your point still stands. Which brings me to C, which is that our local church and wider federation supports missionaries to bring the gospel to the unbelieving world. I don’t much about missionary work personally, but from what I do know it’s about getting people to church for Word, sacrament, and discipline. It’s ecclesiastically sanctioned, maintained and oriented from beginning to end.
Paul’s a bit of a special case, being the apostle called directly by Jesus himself. But I don’t think he was any less ecclesiastically oriented. I mean, he was planting churches. So the point at Athens would have been to get folks to church, not “meet them where they’re at or reaching the unchurched on their own turf.”
Zrim,
What about here;
Where does the Catholic Church teach that it’s “results driven”?
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
Jeremy, looks like you’re interested in results:
“I know and care deeply about many unchurched secular people and I don’t see them ever just showing up at an OPC Church. For a Church that represents less than 1 out of every 10,000 professing believers on the planet you spend a great deal of time condemning the other 99.9% I’m not sure I see how the OPC preaches to the lost or serves the poor and that should concern you enough to take a look in the mirror.”
That is, small churches don’t matter, big ones with lots of programs do. I guess you found a home. But have you found peace in Christ (or church)?
I’m slightly bewildered. I understand that evangelicalism got much of it’s ‘personal relationship with Jesus’ piety from roman catholicism. It’s just not the RC I grew up in. Now we’ve got protestants turned RC bringing conversion and conversion narratives back into the RC, while I’ve gone to a protestant piety that rightly devalues the conversion emphasis and narrative in favor of discipleship(Calvin-we’re converted a little at a time), which was the piety of the RC I grew up in. That’s what’s been odd about looking at this breed of RC, I don’t recognize you. You look and act and talk like the broader evanjellyfish I couldn’t escape from quick enough.
Jeremy –
Who gained more converts, Charles Finney or J. Gresham Machen? Who would you rather have as your minister, Charles Finney or J. Gresham Machen? When conversions come easily we have to ask exactly what people are being converted to.
I suspect Joel Osteen has a bigger church than most local Catholic churches. What is he doing right thant the Catholics are doing wrong, using your logic?
Numbers mean nothing because it puts man’s response to a message as the factor that validates or invalidates the message. Show me in Scripture (or in Catholic teaching) where this is what we are to look at to determine truth.
Jeremy – O.K., So when and where do secular unchurched people go to hear the gospel from the mouth of the OPC?
Erik – An OPC church?
Jeremy – For a Church that represents less than 1 out of every 10,000 professing believers on the planet you spend a great deal of time condemning the other 99.9% I’m not sure I see how the OPC preaches to the lost or serves the poor and that should concern you enough to take a look in the mirror.
Erik – You’re starting to sound like someone debating theology on Facebook. Next we’ll hear how arguments about doctrine never fed a hungry child.
Sean,
Look, act, and talk? Evangelicals go to Eucharistic adoration? Pilgramages? Take their kids to see true relics from the ancient Church? Teach them the Baltimore Catechism? Teach them “the prayers”? Try to avoid mortal sin like the plague? Go to confession? The only similarity I see is that their is a very real surge of passionate Catholics today. Evangelicals are passionate too so I guess that’s a similarity, but I am personally indebted to the Reformed tradition. It was in the Reformed world I learned to love authority of the Church (they just didn’t have one)
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
Sean,
With your life story I don’t blame you for getting dizzy from time to time.
Jeremy – Pilgramages? Take their kids to see true relics from the ancient Church?
Erik – Does the creation museum or those theme parks that I think the Bakker’s & Falwell might have bulit count? How about Clark W. Griswold taking his kids to Walley World?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtyrDZG-eDo
Jeremy,
Granted you’ve bought in to the sacerdotalism. I give you all the credit for understanding Rome is about the Mass, particularly the eucharist(where’s your Maryology btw, you don’t mention her near enough). But the rest of it quacks like an evanjellyduck, and for that matter reminds me of the evangelicals going emergent looking for profundity and transcendence and historical rooting, so even there you guys look more like evangelicals to me than the RC I knew and still know. As I’ve told you, I’m sure RCC is elated you are there. BTW, it’s also in the reformed world you learned to value the reading of the bible.
Erik, I’m not near as interesting as I used to be. Thank God.
We’ve never really contemplated the possibility that the Rev. Tim Tom could actually be a priest…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcWA3RqFSVQ
If I converted to Rome and found it to be as pedestrian as evangelicalism I can’t tell you how disappointed I would be. I would expect something mysterious and old. I would be a William F. Buckley type Catholic, having a priest come to the house to perform the Latin Mass for myself and the household staff.
What about here; Still, in contrast to both Catholics and evangelicals, the Reformed virtue is obedience, not results.
Where does the Catholic Church teach that it’s “results driven”?
Jeremy, I don’t see how that was accusatory and condemning. I am simply pointing out what I think is a significant difference between Reformed and Catholic/evangelical virtues. Or, if you like, “interpretive paradigms.” And I’m not talking about what the RCC teaches. I’m responding to what you have suggested, which is that don’t nobody get the converts and lead the world in transformative holistic gospel like the holy mother. Well bully for you guys. But having an ethic of obedience over results, yawn.
Sean, also keep in mind that may of those evangelicals also had fairly scholastic views of biblical inerrancy. Now the CTCers have taken that scholasticism and applied it to — you guessed — the pope.
Jeremy, it doesn’t look like you learned anything about 2 kingdom theology or the spirituality of the church.